| People v Hall |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04812 [74 AD3d 837] |
| June 1, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Hall, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y.Brodt, and Danielle S. Fenn of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella,J.), rendered November 29, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in thesecond degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of robbery inthe first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 160.15 (3), as charged in count one of theindictment, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment;as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's conviction of robbery in the first degree (see Penal Law §160.15 [3]) must be vacated, as the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence that anelectronic stun gun which was used by the defendant, was a "dangerous instrument" (Penal Law§ 160.15 [3]). Under the circumstances here, the People failed to offer evidence that adevice of this type "under the circumstances in which it [was] used, attempted to be used orthreatened to be used, [was] readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury"(Penal Law § 10.00 [13]; see People v Maio Ni, 293 AD2d 552 [2002]; Peoplev Nelson, 292 AD2d 397 [2002]; cf. People v MacCary, 173 AD2d 646 [1991]).Accordingly, the count of the indictment charging robbery in the first degree must be dismissed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not entitled to a missing witness charge(see generally People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 196 [2003]; People v Gonzalez,68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]; see alsoPeople v Evans, 56 AD3d 572 [2008]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 432 [2005], cert denied548 US 908 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Eng, Leventhal andRoman, JJ., concur.